Should those accused of rape be given anonymity

awec

This post has been deleted.

Kev.OC

awec wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204712/Woman-falsely-claimed-raped-men-regretted-having-sex-jailed-years.html?ICO=most_read_module

The gist of the story is a woman got drunk and had sex with 3 guys, regretted it and accused them of rape.

She got 2 years in prison. IMO, she should have been given a sentence in line with what the men would have got if found guilty.

The guys she accused now have the stigma of being accused of being rapists hanging over them for the rest of their lives. In this particular article they are not named (thankfully), but obviously there are plenty of cases where men are named before being found guilty.

But my question here is, should people accused of rape be given anonymity until proven guilty? Sex related accusations carry with them a stigma that the likes of murder accusations etc do not. Even if someone is cleared that stigma remains to an extent. Is this fair?

Rape is an absolutely disgusting crime, and if found guilty the person should obviously be very publicly named and shamed (and put behind bars for an long time).

So, is protecting those who are falsely accused worth delaying the naming and shaming of those who are guilty? IMO yes. Thoughts?

Short answer, yes.

Here's a little anecdotal story for you. About maybe 3 years ago I was questioned regarding an attempted kidnapping in relation to a bank robbery. Long story short, someone had a car like mine and copied my plates before they tried the kidnapping. So naturally, the search led to me.

So I can exaggerate a little and tell people I was investigated for kidnapping, which is a pretty serious crime. They ask why and I get to tell them a story. Now, if I said I was investigated for rape...different story altogether. Like you say awec, sex related crimes are highly stigmatised in relation to other crimes.

Even if it got out that these lads were merely suspected of rape, the allegations will spread significantly faster than the truth ever could. It's something they'd never be able to get away from.

Convicted rapists deserve everything they get. Personally I think they should be locked up for as long as the law allows (except for statutory between two consenting minors, but that's another story). But I would agree with you completely in saying that protecting those who are falsely accused is worth delaying the naming and shaming of those who are guilty.

Piliger

Yes.

If the alleged victim is given anonymity then the accuser MUST be given the same. There is no loss of justice or risk to the justice system by doing so.

Being accused of rape is an appalling stigma and it is not removed by the accusation then being retracted or by being found innocent. It stays with the accused forever.

The anti rape movements, although they do a lot of good work, are hard core men haters. They want men's rights to be stripped from us when it comes to rape accusations. The Anti rape movement in Ireland have regularly stated that they oppose most of men's rights in court when defending themselves and that an accusation alone should be enough to jail a man.

Personally I have no idea how we, men, allowed this horrendous injustice to arise and to continnue to this day.

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

The anti rape movements, although they do a lot of good work, are hard core men haters. They want men's rights to be stripped from us when it comes to rape accusations. The Anti rape movement in Ireland have regularly stated that they oppose most of men's rights in court when defending themselves and that an accusation alone should be enough to jail a man.

Personally I have no idea how we, men, allowed this horrendous injustice to arise and to continnue to this day.

I think thats a bit unfair. I don't know any woman - or man for that matter - who isn't "anti rape" but I have a husband, a brother, son etc so I don't ever want them to find themselves with their lives in tatters because of a false accusation so yes I fully support anonymity for all until proven guilty.

BrendanCro

Instinctively I want to agree with the OP but the lawyer in me is screaming NO!

Difficulty with not naming an accused is that you lose the very important safeguard of justice being done, and seen to be done, in public. Take an extreme example of Supreme Court judge/Senior Counsel/prominent politican being accused. This person almost certainly knows or has close connections to the Central Criminal Court judge who will have been a barrister and is politically connected.

Whats to stop the judge from strictly ruling on evidence to either help the defendant if he knows on acquittal it will never come to light who the accused was? Or even directing an acquittal on grounds of lack of evidence? Appeal to the Supreme Court presumably also covered so the same problem exists there as Judges come from exact same background. May seem like a far fetched example but in a country proven to be as "friendly" to insiders as our own this is too big a risk to take for my liking.

Secondly, Ireland is so small that rumours spread faster than news. Speculation as to who the person accused in X trial happening in that closed courtroom is. Everything in Ireland leaks or is leaked so the name will spread. Maybe not in old media if illegal to do so but certainly on-line. Which means it could potentially lead to far more people being tarnished with flase speculations.

Thirdly - where do you draw the line? Serious sexual assault? Murder - or simply abolish public trials which is step one on road to autocracy. Justice in public is a key cornerstone of a fair and transparent justice system.

So while I agree it is awful for the man involved, its also awful for the man or woman falesly accused of any other awful awful crime. But its one of the many prices we pay for what on balance is a reasonable justice system.

Manach

Offhand, the law student part of me agrees with the OP.
In sensitive case, for juveniles and say companies - trails can be held essentially outside the gaze of the public. By affording a cloak of privacy, this would reduce the stigma of being accused of such a heinous act - with the privacy of the individual being protected, in line with sections of the European Human rights convention.

Anatom

I take BrendanCro's point but I think its too far-fetched to eschew someones right to privacy because they may or may not know a member of the judiciary.

I fully agree with the OP that anyone accused (of any offence actually) should have their identity protected unless and until they are convicted of such offence. To be incorrectly stigmatised by an accusation such as rape will colour not only the life of the accused but also those of his/her family.

seamus

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure how effective such a measure would actually be in protecting the accused.

That is, the effect on the accused isn't really on their name becoming known in the wider public, but rather into their more immediate community of friends and family. Someone accused of rape but never found guilty can easily scoot off to the next city and nobody there will ever know who they were or what they were accused of.

It's really only at home that the memory and the whispers stick.

With that in mind, while a court gag would prevent their name from being released into the general public, the existence of the allegations would likely become known by the accused's community, especially if the accuser is from the same community, as is usually the case.
So I'm not sure if a court gag would be all that effective in protecting the accused.

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure how effective such a measure would actually be in protecting the accused.

That is, the effect on the accused isn't really on their name becoming known in the wider public, but rather into their more immediate community of friends and family. Someone accused of rape but never found guilty can easily scoot off to the next city and nobody there will ever know who they were or what they were accused of.

It's really only at home that the memory and the whispers stick.

With that in mind, while a court gag would prevent their name from being released into the general public, the existence of the allegations would likely become known by the accused's community, especially if the accuser is from the same community, as is usually the case.
So I'm not sure if a court gag would be all that effective in protecting the accused.

Agreed, your immediate community (eg your employer) would know but I'd rather not be a poster boy for the Mail on Sunday all the same. That would be my opinion on all crimes but especially sex crimes. There will always be the whiff of 'that's your man that got away with murder' following you around.

This probably should be on another thread but I would also think that everyone should be entitled to free legal aid too. What are the criteria for not being granted free legal aid? I own my own house, so would I be expected to start a new mortgage again if falsely accused of something? I can never understand how we can boast about our great legal systems (in the Western World in general) when justice usually depends on how much you can pay (if the state ain't coughing up).

Galwayguy35

Yeah I think the accused should be given annonymity as there will always be a chance that even if a person is found innocent that someone will come out with the line "a sure there is no smoke without fire".

pickarooney

I think everyone accused of anything should be given anonymity. I can't for the life of me figure out why it's not the case.

Honey-ec

Piliger wrote: »

The anti rape movements, although they do a lot of good work, are hard core men haters. They want men's rights to be stripped from us when it comes to rape accusations. The Anti rape movement in Ireland have regularly stated that they oppose most of men's rights in court when defending themselves and that an accusation alone should be enough to jail a man.

I assume you have sources & statistics to back up such a sweeping generalisation??? And surely to God EVERYONE (bar rapists themselves and one possible idiot in AH) is anti-rape???

I'm scratching my head here, Piliger, I'm not going to lie.

Piliger

BrendanCro wrote: »

Instinctively I want to agree with the OP but the lawyer in me is screaming NO!

Which is not a great basis for making the right decision imho.

Difficulty with not naming an accused is that you lose the very important safeguard of justice being done, and seen to be done, in public.

Yet you make no persuasive case that this is applies when the alleged victim is anonymous.

Take an extreme example of Supreme Court judge/Senior Counsel/prominent politican being accused. This person almost certainly knows or has close connections to the Central Criminal Court judge who will have been a barrister and is politically connected.

You forget that the prosecutors know who the accused is and are free to take actions to make sure justice is done.

Whats to stop the judge from strictly ruling on evidence to either help the defendant if he knows on acquittal it will never come to light who the accused was? Or even directing an acquittal on grounds of lack of evidence? Appeal to the Supreme Court presumably also covered so the same problem exists there as Judges come from exact same background. May seem like a far fetched example but in a country proven to be as "friendly" to insiders as our own this is too big a risk to take for my liking.

Again you make no case for this argument being any difference with or without anonymity.

Secondly, Ireland is so small that rumours spread faster than news. Speculation as to who the person accused in X trial happening in that closed courtroom is. Everything in Ireland leaks or is leaked so the name will spread. Maybe not in old media if illegal to do so but certainly on-line. Which means it could potentially lead to far more people being tarnished with flase speculations.

So we should remove the anonymity from the alleged victim then ? Is that your point here ?

Thirdly - where do you draw the line? Serious sexual assault? Murder - or simply abolish public trials which is step one on road to autocracy. Justice in public is a key cornerstone of a fair and transparent justice system.

A red herring. In those cases the alleged victim is not anonymous at the moment.

So while I agree it is awful for the man involved, its also awful for the man or woman falesly accused of any other awful awful crime. But its one of the many prices we pay for what on balance is a reasonable justice system.

Easy to say but unsupported by any argument. Your points all support the removing of anonymity from the alleged victim rather than make any case regarding the anonymity of the accused.

Piliger

Honey-ec wrote: »

I assume you have sources & statistics to back up such a sweeping generalisation??? And surely to God EVERYONE (bar rapists themselves and one possible idiot in AH) is anti-rape???

I'm scratching my head here, Piliger, I'm not going to lie.

A life time of reading press releases and viewing interviews from and with people from the rape Crisis centre and all of the other similar organisations.

And talking about 'sweeping generalisation' I never made any reference to those who are 'anti rape'. That would be stupid. I referred in my post to anti rape 'movement'. A completely different thing.... it's a pity you didn't read more carefully before responding.

Scratch away :rolleyes:

Hazys

BrendanCro wrote: »

Instinctively I want to agree with the OP but the lawyer in me is screaming NO!

Difficulty with not naming an accused is that you lose the very important safeguard of justice being done, and seen to be done, in public.

Surely it can be published or annouced if the accused is actually found guilty

BrendanCro wrote: »

Take an extreme example of Supreme Court judge/Senior Counsel/prominent politican being accused. This person almost certainly knows or has close connections to the Central Criminal Court judge who will have been a barrister and is politically connected.

Whats to stop the judge from strictly ruling on evidence to either help the defendant if he knows on acquittal it will never come to light who the accused was? Or even directing an acquittal on grounds of lack of evidence? Appeal to the Supreme Court presumably also covered so the same problem exists there as Judges come from exact same background. May seem like a far fetched example but in a country proven to be as "friendly" to insiders as our own this is too big a risk to take for my liking.

Taking an extreme example is ridiculous. How many rape cases have involved a high member of society? 1 in 100? Even if that 1 in 100, what are the odds that person is buddy buddy with the Judge or the Judge is that corrupt he would alter the verdict of rape to help somebody he knows? Seems like a 1 in billion odds. Ridiculous to rule out a suggestion based on that premise.

Why wouldnt a judge just make a ruling based on the evidence and not public or media perception? Am i missing something here?

BrendanCro wrote: »

Secondly, Ireland is so small that rumours spread faster than news. Speculation as to who the person accused in X trial happening in that closed courtroom is. Everything in Ireland leaks or is leaked so the name will spread. Maybe not in old media if illegal to do so but certainly on-line. Which means it could potentially lead to far more people being tarnished with flase speculations.

The majority of rape cases are not high profile, flashing up on screen on RTE 6.1 news. Most cases are between two normal everyday people. Where nobody outside the familes of the people involved would care. So what would be the incentive for a person within the legal system to leak the info?

BrendanCro wrote: »

Thirdly - where do you draw the line? Serious sexual assault? Murder - or simply abolish public trials which is step one on road to autocracy. Justice in public is a key cornerstone of a fair and transparent justice system.

Crimes that have serious stigma attached to them. If it works out with Rape, maybe expand to other crimes.



Anonymity would also help the victim. A lot of rape people feel shame after the attack and just want to forget about it and certainly dont want it dragged up in public. If they could get justice without having everybody know what happened to them, i'm sure you would get more people coming forward.


I'm not saying anonymity for both parties invloved will be easy to implement but to rule out the suggestion based on your arguments seem crazy.

jhegarty

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah I think the accused should be given annonymity as there will always be a chance that even if a person is found innocent that someone will come out with the line "a sure there is no smoke without fire".

+1

I don't see any reason to report on the name of a person not found guilt of something.

Varied

Absolutely.

This case is a perfect example. Like it or not some people will always have the "no smoke without fire" attitude and even a mere accusation can destroy a person.

After a conviction of course their right to anonymity is revoked.

strobe

seamus wrote: »

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure how effective such a measure would actually be in protecting the accused.

That is, the effect on the accused isn't really on their name becoming known in the wider public, but rather into their more immediate community of friends and family. Someone accused of rape but never found guilty can easily scoot off to the next city and nobody there will ever know who they were or what they were accused of.

It's really only at home that the memory and the whispers stick.

With that in mind, while a court gag would prevent their name from being released into the general public, the existence of the allegations would likely become known by the accused's community, especially if the accuser is from the same community, as is usually the case.
So I'm not sure if a court gag would be all that effective in protecting the accused.

Ahh but it'd only take one person five seconds in the next city to type your name into google and receive the search results with the specific line with your name in it, "...the man, Seamus Boardsie, aged 33, is accused of brutally raping..." linking to the media reports of the allegations. It's a reasonably common thing to 'google' people nowadays, employers or potential employers seem to do it pretty frequently from what people say, and I know people do it when they meet someone new or have just gotten back in touch with them just as a quick way to bring up their facebook and twitter and what have you, I'm sure many others do it just out of curiosity regularly enough too... if your name was quoted in a popular media outlet it'll usually show up pretty high in the search results I'd imagine.

So I certainly can see the benefit of media anonymity for the accused as long as they remain only the accused. And also the damage that could be done by no media anonymity being in place... Imagine you meet the girl of your dreams for instance, arrange a date and she gives you a quick google out of curiosity only for "The man, Strobe Stroberson, a mechanic from Dublin, is accused of repeatedly and violently..." to appear half way down page one of the search results.

pickarooney wrote: »

I think everyone accused of anything should be given anonymity. I can't for the life of me figure out why it's not the case.

I agree completely.

cson

I'd have to say yes. Unfortunately with a crime like rape, an allegation = conviction in the eyes of many.

yawha

Are there any stats on how damaging false rape accusations are to the accused, compared to other crimes?

This case from a little while back springs to mind: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1217/listowel.html - and this was a full conviction, not just an accusation.

That all said, personally I agree with those who advocate anonymity for those who have been accused of any crime.

eviltwin

yawha wrote: »

Are there any stats on how damaging false rape accusations are to the accused, compared to other crimes?

This case from a little while back springs to mind: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1217/listowel.html - and this was a full conviction, not just an accusation.

That all said, personally I agree with those who advocate anonymity for those who have been accused of any crime.

Did it turn out in the end the victim in that case had lied?

Fox McCloud

I think theres a few issues with how the justice system works (or rather, doesnt) in relation to rape that causes this problem.

Firstly the low conviction rate for rape, very few get to court at all, very low conviction rate even if it does get to court.
While this is for a huge variety of reasons, some of those are that rape is simply very hard to prove, particularly in a date rape/relationship scenario. So when someone is cleared of rape in court, people might assume that there wasn't enough evidence rather than the person being innocent.

So in the end, even if your cleared of rape, totally innocent, its very hard for people to believe this because they don't TRUST the justice system to convict rapists.

Secondly, the issue of sentencing. This women got two years, not long enough many say, is it proportional to the crime? No, I would think destroying lives like that merits a higher sentence.

But is it proportional to the sentence which the guys would have gotten had they been convicted? Well, yeah..
Rape gets phenomenally low sentences for some odd reason, here and in the uk. Does anyone know why? Judges dont seem to think a person is a threat to society, so long as they are nice to everyone, EXCEPT those they rape of course.


So it seems the justice system doesn't treat sexual abuse and rape with half the seriousness we as a society would like it to. This crimes destroy lives, for both victims of rape and of false rape accusations, yet you need to have your fingers crossed for a custodial sentence in either case. I think we have one too many 'out of touch' judges in our justice system.

Fox McCloud

yawha wrote: »

Are there any stats on how damaging false rape accusations are to the accused, compared to other crimes?

This case from a little while back springs to mind: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1217/listowel.html - and this was a full conviction, not just an accusation.

That all said, personally I agree with those who advocate anonymity for those who have been accused of any crime.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with convicted rapist's names being published, though the case you point out clearly shows being accused and convicted of rape doesn't always lower your popularity ratings

yawha

My point was basically it's a, fairly infamous at this point, example of a large amount of people sympathising with a convicted rapist. As such, it's incongruent with the idea that a false rape accusation would ruin someone's life because of presumptions of guilt. I'm very open to evidence/statistics showing how false rape accusations damage the accused an inordinate amount compared to any other serious crime, I just haven't seen them.

saintsaltynuts

Cleared Of Murder= Applause.
Cleared Of Bank Robbery= Applause.
Cleared Of Rape=???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
For The Rest Of Your Life Bro.

strobe

yawha wrote: »

Are there any stats on how damaging false rape accusations are to the accused, compared to other crimes?

This case from a little while back springs to mind: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1217/listowel.html - and this was a full conviction, not just an accusation.

That all said, personally I agree with those who advocate anonymity for those who have been accused of any crime.

yawha wrote: »

My point was basically it's a, fairly infamous at this point, example of a large amount of people sympathising with a convicted rapist. As such, it's incongruent with the idea that a false rape accusation would ruin someone's life because of presumptions of guilt. I'm very open to evidence/statistics showing how false rape accusations damage the accused an inordinate amount compared to any other serious crime, I just haven't seen them.

Evidence..? I dunno, google 'rape accusation ruined life' maybe? Did it on a hunch there and there are pages of results for people saying it did just that.

Statistics... are you for real? How exactly does one gather such statistics? Run around tracking down people that were falsely accused of rape, as if they hadn't been through enough, and get them to rate how badly their life has been effected on a scale from one to ten?

I'm not sure why you seem to want to cast doubt over the fact that being accused of rape might fuck with your life a little to be honest. It appears you are being deliberately obtuse. Why?

yawha

I'm just curious. I support anonymity for people accused of any crime.

LostPassword

Ridiculous thread.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made. And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

Galwayguy35

LostPassword wrote: »

Ridiculous thread.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made. And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

So people who campaign for mens rights are fanatics are they?

LostPassword

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So people who campaign for mens rights are fanatics are they?

No, the phrase means the fanatics amongst the mens' rights movements, according to the normal rules of English grammar.

Galwayguy35

LostPassword wrote: »

No, the phrase means the fanatics amongst the mens' rights movements, according to the normal rules of English grammar.

And where have you come across these fanatics?

I'm not having a go at you on this I am just interested to know as I have not seen this myself.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Kev.OC

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

As I say, just playing devils advocate to see what others think. I'm not sure myself to be honest. I think everyone accused shouldn't be named straight away. And those convicted certainly should be named. I suppose it just comes down to whereabouts in the process you think that line between anonymity and infamy should be drawn.

Madam_X

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

Cleared Of Murder= Applause.
Cleared Of Bank Robbery= Applause.

Really?

Yes I agree there should be anonymity for anyone for any crime. Trial by media is a complete farce, and it's getting worse now with such advances in communications technology.

How realistic and workable this is though, I don't know. Not knowledgeable enough on the area.

Piliger

Kev.OC wrote: »

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

What an appalling supposition. You are basically saying that someone must be 'tainted' by guilt if the prosecution think he is and go all the way to court ? Huh ????? Have you ANY idea how the system works and the number of people who have been found to have been totally and utterly and completely innocent after the prosecution scream and yell guilt all the way to the verdict ?

Piliger

LostPassword wrote: »

Ridiculous thread.

Well I guess men's rights and justice means nothing to you.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

You appear to be under the delusion that names are only announced by the prosecution when a trial is reached. This is wrong.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made.

Wrong. Where is your evidence of your claims that rates of prosecution are extremely low ? do you any independent evidence ? And on what do you base you claims that the accused are anonymous ? Because you are clearly and self evidently wrong.

And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

You make no sense whatsoever. The whole justice system is based on the view that better a thousand go free than one be falsely found guilty.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea.

Why is it that anonymity for women doesn't necessitate secret trials ?

I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

The only fanaticism appears to be coming from you. Your misandrous rant is clear for all to see.

Dr Galen

LostPassword wrote: »

Ridiculous thread.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made. And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

LostPassword wrote: »

No, the phrase means the fanatics amongst the mens' rights movements, according to the normal rules of English grammar.

Can I ask you to remember which forum you are posting in here please.

Throwing around words like fanatic and generally posting in quite an aggressive manner is not going to lead to anything good tbh. By all means make your points but as I say, tone it down a bit and remember this is The Gentleman's Club

@everyone else - lets all take a nice deep one here and not have what is a good thread topic descend into something bad

Cheers

DrG

saintsaltynuts

Madam_X wrote: »

Really?

Yes I agree there should be anonymity for anyone for any crime. Trial by media is a complete farce, and it's getting worse now with such advances in communications technology.

How realistic and workable this is though, I don't know. Not knowledgeable enough on the area.

I'm really talking about being cleared of sexual assault.People will always think Did he or didn't he.Life is ruined i think.

Kev.OC

Piliger wrote: »

Kev.OC wrote: »

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

What an appalling supposition. You are basically saying that someone must be 'tainted' by guilt if the prosecution think he is and go all the way to court ? Huh ????? Have you ANY idea how the system works and the number of people who have been found to have been totally and utterly and completely innocent after the prosecution scream and yell guilt all the way to the verdict?

I'm saying nothing of the sort. As I pointed out in that statement, I was simply playing devils advocate. I'm well aware people are found innocent for a range of charges on a regular basis, so please don't confuse me for someone who follows the above (i.e. "no smoke without fire) line of thinking.

This is the paragraph of mine you didn't quote;

wrote:

As I say, just playing devils advocate to see what others think. I'm not sure myself to be honest. I think everyone accused shouldn't be named straight away. And those convicted certainly should be named. I suppose it just comes down to whereabouts in the process you think that line between anonymity and infamy should be drawn.

What I'm saying is this. I think we can all agree that no one should have their name dragged through the papers at the slightest hint of a wrong-doing. I also think we can all agree that upon conviction, any right to anonymity is relinquished. But surely to go from anonymity to infamy, a line must be crossed. And where in the process would that line be drawn? After conviction perhaps? I don't have any answers for these questions myself, I'm merely putting forth some food for thought.

Also, are people in favour of private trials behind closed doors, or does the justice system, as a poster pointed out earlier, have to be seen by the public to be taking action on those accused of crimes? Because if it's the latter, you couldn't have private trials behind closed doors, and then you're back the the "where do you draw the line" argument.

iptba

LostPassword wrote: »

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts.

I've never done or seen a poll*, but I've heard plenty of fathers' rights and mens' rights activists complain about the "in camera" rule and want it relaxed; nothing stands out in my memory in terms of any fervently calling for it to stay.*

*but, of course, it's hard to remember everything that is said

The Corinthian

Kev.OC wrote: »

Also, are people in favour of private trials behind closed doors, or does the justice system, as a poster pointed out earlier, have to be seen by the public to be taking action on those accused of crimes? Because if it's the latter, you couldn't have private trials behind closed doors, and then you're back the the "where do you draw the line" argument.

I'm not sure you can really claim that protecting the identities of the parties involved until and unless a guilty verdict is announced can really be described as being behind 'closed doors'. After all, reporting can still take place; the only thing that cannot be reported is the identity of the defendant.

This is already something afforded to minors, as well as the victims of rape (AFAIK), and I don't really see many arguments against these examples in the name of 'transparency'. Or should their identities not be protected?

Piliger

LostPassword wrote: »

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea.

No it doesn't. Trials can very easily remain open, just as they are now with anonymity for the alleged victim. You have limited imagination is would appear.

Snowie

yes until proven guilty....

Meirleach

I'm pretty sure that everyone should be anonymous until proven guilty...it would really cut the rug out from under the redtops as an additional perk ;-)